Cardinal Ratzinger v. Catholic Encyclopedia: Did humanity owe a debt?

[OneSheep]

You are correct that this thread is not about Adam. I am correct that Adam is a common denominator of the debt vs. no debt issue of this thread.
You are correct that there are many, many common denominators. I am correct in my choice of Adam.

You are correct in post 437 when you posted:
“Please, if you have a way of harmonizing the two views, offer one. Elimination, remember, is not the goal of this thread.”
I am correct in that I see the possibility of harmonizing the two views and I am correct in offering one.

What I will change, so that everyone can retain their own perceptions about Adam, is that I will drop most of the “true” part of Adam and Original Sin which is directly connected with the first human. I cannot drop all the “true” parts of Adam because human nature is often discussed in this thread especially in areas where we talk about forgiving others.

Therefore, I will attempt harmonizing the two views of debt/no debt in the way I believe it can be done.
No one has to accept my beliefs.

To begin.
The first three chapters of Genesis tell the tale of Adam’s relationship with God. Looking at this unique relationship between a human creature and his Divine Creator, we find the means of the relationship in Genesis 1: 26-27.
Post 441 explains
“The focus of this thread is on the different ways that people see God in terms of “debt”, and finding a means of harmonizing the different ways”
Apparently, two of the ways are 1. God demanding payment of a debt. 2. God forgiving the debt.

OneSheep – if there are errors in the way I state things, please give me your suggestions for better words. Thank you.

Good Morning, Granny!

I’m sorry I am so behind again here.

In the Primacy of Christ perspective, nothing about the incarnation depends on Adam. The other view is described by some as “anthropocentric” because it depends on Adam:

The Incarnation completes creation rather than supplementing it, as the anthropocentric view of creation would have us believe…

This author characterizes a contrast in Duns Scotus view:
This Christoform theology of creation presents Christ as the blueprint for creation. In Christ the divine-human communion reaches its culmination and so in Christ the meaning and purpose of creation reaches its highest point. In Christ, what all of creation is ordered towards, that is the praise and glory of God in a communion of love, finds its centre and its highest meaning. With the Incarnation at its centre, creation becomes a cosmic hymn to the Trinity, in which the universe, bound together in and through the cosmic Christ, offers praise and glory to God.

afriarslife.blogspot.com/2008/06/primacy-of-christ-in-john-duns-scotus.html

“It can be said, therefore, that with a priority of nature God chose for His heavenly court all the angels and men He wished to have with their various degrees of perfection before He foresaw either sin or the punishment for sinners; and no one has been predestined only because somebody else’s sin was foreseen, lest anyone have reason to rejoice over the fall of another."

John Duns Scotus

absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/scotus-writings/

I think that we can all agree that the incarnation was redemptive, and we can find joy in that redemption. What I am reading, from the direct quote from Duns Scotus, is that if the incarnation occurred because of man’s sin, then it is possible for one to take joy in the fall of man, for without such a fall, the incarnation would not have occurred.

Let me give one more simple view, from the mouth of a wonderful teenager I know: “If it wasn’t for people sinning, then Jesus died for nothing.” She was finding reason to see that disobedience was necessary to give meaning to the incarnation! This view is reasonably described as “anthropocentric”.

So, the “no debt” view is not one described as “God forgiving the debt.” The no-debt view is the view that no debt is incurred ever for forgiveness is “before always”, in Jesus’ nature.

In both ways, debt/no debt, either Adam has to atone for his debt so God can forgive him. Or Adam does not have to atone because God automatically forgave him in love. No one else is named. Therefore, Adam connects the two views.

Adam can be discussed in light of the two views, and there is a great deal that “connects” the two views, but Adam is not central to the Primacy of Christ.

Regarding the debt. The debt has to relate to some kind of thing that is so precious that it could cause God to ask for payment or cause God’s love to override payment.
Genesis 3: 11 indicates that obedience is that precious. The explanation of precious obedience is Genesis 2: 15-17. Disobedience is what will have God asking for reconciliation or God violating Adam’s free will out of love. The proper name for disobedience is Original Sin. Therefore, Original Sin connects the two views.

Is the above somewhat understandable so far?

Let us look at the words of Christ:

Mark 11:25 (New International Version)

25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins. "

As we know, the Word was with God and the Word was God, from the beginning. In a no-debt view, for example, as Christ (God) looked upon creation (creation not enacted, but as a thought, fully knowing that man would disobey) Christ (God) would forgive sin before always, for lack of forgiveness is an alienation, it is a disharmony within the Creator Himself. God never holds anything against anyone. This is a no-debt view, which is legitimate.

(continued)

 

[OneSheep]

Continued post to our Granny dearest:

In the debt view, (which I personally would prefer not to describe as “anthropocentric”) God’s love allows for holding a debt:

Adam and Eve were created good, but sinned and fell into the grip of the devil. Their sin cut them off irrevocably from God and so God decided to repair the damage done by sending his Son to take that sin upon himself and so restore human beings to righteousness.

afriarslife.blogspot.com/2008/06/primacy-of-christ-in-john-duns-scotus.html

This view also has its appeal. Man has a “fallen” state, which cuts off man from God. As Cardinal Ratzinger stated, this view reflects the notion that all man is guilty of sin before God, and described how Anselm believed that expiation is needed in order to restore man’s status of righteousness. This view, I am saying, is also legitimate. This view does somewhat depend on Adam and Eve, but in light of our own personal spiritual journeys, it does not. Every single one of us can sense that we owe something to God, that God demands repayment for something we have done or failed to do.

So, do I understand you so far? Yes, I understand your view as coming from a “debt” view trying to make sense of a “no-debt” view, but I don’t think that the no-debt view makes sense to you (yet).

The no-debt view is not about Adam, it is about God.

I know, you absolutely love to talk about Adam, and we love you for that. But do you see what I am saying? Does God take offense, or does He not? This is about God.

Once you understand the no-debt view, then perhaps you will also see its legitimacy. In the mean time, I don’t see any reason for you to put any effort into harmonizing the debt view with a view you cannot see as legitimate.

Perhaps you should read more of Duns Scotus, or did you consider what I posted earlier from Stendl-Rast, that “sin” is alienation, and “forgiveness” is belonging? So, in the creed when we say that we believe in “the forgiveness of sins” we are believing in belonging, we believe in belonging as the opposite of alienation. We are addressing all that alienates us (desires, appetites, holding debts, etc) and we find our belonging in our love of, and belief in, Christ. I am being to brief here to give this view any justice, though.

I’m going to throw in a little something, just because a slight change in context might help. Pick a current world conflict, one where two sides are at war with one another. Israel vs. Gaza, Isis vs. Syria, etc. Pick one where you have “taken sides”. Do you feel offended, for example, when Israel bombs Gaza? Do you feel offended when Gaza bombs Israel?

If you are like most Americans, you will not feel offended when Israel bombs Gaza because you understand the Israeli point of view. You would see the deaths in Gaza as “deserved” or “collateral damage”, an evil bound to occur, sad, but not angering. You see the good intent of the Israelis, protecting their own, and destroying an evil. You would certainly not believe that Israel “owes a debt” to Gaza for Israeli destructive action toward Gaza.

Maybe that helped, maybe not. If you are not like most Americans concerning this conflict, pick a different one. Yes, we are not to rationalize war at any time, but I am talking about the normal human gut reaction, offense, and giving an example of how one can see evil happening but not take offense. If this does not help, no worries.

Have a great day, Granny!

 

[OneSheep]

I’m slowly working my way off CAF (too time consuming when there are blogs to write! ), but here I am again…

Catechism (emphasis mine):

CCC 2093: Faith in God’s love encompasses the call and the obligation to respond with sincere love to divine charity. The first commandment enjoins us to love God above everything and all creatures for him and because of him.

CCC 2095: The theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity inform and give life to the moral virtues. Thus charity leads us to render to God what we as creatures owe him in all justice. The virtue of religion disposes us to have this attitude.

God’s call to the divine life isn’t a gift that can be discarded without gravely injuring ourselves and gravely offending God. Perhaps the best images we can come up with for how God feels about sin are Jesus weeping (we see this when Lazarus dies because of the effects of sin) and Jesus’ cries of frustration and agony both in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross. He “thirsts”.

So we really do have a debt to justice (insert love in place of justice if you wish, for they are interchangeable with God) to love God, for how does one not have an obligation to love Jesus?

Hi CrossofChrist! You are always welcome here, come any time.

I put in red the part that defines the “debt view”. In the no-debt view, God does not take offense, he has already forgiven “before always”. He understands why people do what they do, and does not take offense. He sees people’s “good intent”, that decision to act come from our (good) nature, even though our acts are so often done in ignorance (lack of awareness).

The view that God is justice, depending on the definitions, is one variation of the debt view, from my reading. CCC 2095 does not address the fact that our nature imbues a sense of debt. Even chimpanzees, as I posted long ago, have been observed to hold a debt toward others, and chimpanzees are hardly card-carrying Catholics.

But God loved us before we loved him. God comes first. And his offer of love is also his solution.

God is pure Freedom, and as such he does not depend on or rely upon the world to determine who he is. If God is truly infinite like we say he is, our conceptions of who he is and how he acts will always fall short. At best we can say that he is (fill in the blank), but precisely what he is will always evade us and be too much for us to comprehend. (What I mean to say can be illustrated by referring to the Trinity: God is one God in three Persons–the Holy Trinity. But there is no chance we will ever understand that great Mystery.)

And because of this, it isn’t possible for us to “square the circle”, or to find a way to fully reconcile all these things. Only God can do that.

God’s love can be understood by humanity, CrossofChrist. Cardinal Ratzinger, in rejecting Anselm’s view, was in essence saying “this is not love”. The Cardinal inserted an alternative, “This is Love.”

In the no-debt view, God loved us before we loved Him, and forgiveness itself is love. God forgave you before you were born. God forgave humanity before He created, “before always”.

So, to me the “mystery” concerning debt is not so. What must be done is to harmonize the two views so that we can see that regardless of the perspective, we are all One. I proposed a “tentative theory” to you a while back, I think, but I do not remember if you responded to it.

Thanks!

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning, Granny!

So, the “no debt” view is not one described as “God forgiving the debt.” The no-debt view is the view that no debt is incurred ever for forgiveness is “before always”, in Jesus’ nature.

Thank you for the clarification that "The no-debt view is the view that no debt is incurred ever for forgiveness is “before always”, in Jesus’ nature."

Thank you for posts 457 & 458. There is lots of information which is useful for harmonizing the two views, debt and no debt. I agree that the Divinity of Jesus Christ is the most important point when we analyze the debt along with the amazing Incarnation.

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning, Granny!

Adam can be discussed in light of the two views, and there is a great deal that “connects” the two views, but Adam is not central to the Primacy of Christ.

I do wonder about the idea that “Adam can be discussed in light of the two views, and there is a great deal that “connects” the two views, but Adam is not central to the Primacy of Christ.” from post 457.

Obviously, I am delighted that Adam can be discussed in the light of the two views, debt and no debt. Naturally, the Primacy of Christ is extremely important. However, I do think that the additional available information that Christ was obedient unto death and subsequently was the Victor over death is very important when considering the depth of the Primacy of Christ.
(Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 15; 1 Corinthians 54-55; Luke 24-35) This additional information is that Christ, because of his Primacy as True God and True Man, repaired the damage to the original relationship between humanity and Divinity.

The Primacy of Christ validates the reality of Adam and Original Sin. (Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22)

 

[OneSheep]

I do wonder about the idea that “Adam can be discussed in light of the two views, and there is a great deal that “connects” the two views, but Adam is not central to the Primacy of Christ.” from post 457.

Obviously, I am delighted that Adam can be discussed in the light of the two views, debt and no debt. Naturally, the Primacy of Christ is extremely important. However, I do think that the additional available information that Christ was obedient unto death and subsequently was the Victor over death is very important when considering the depth of the Primacy of Christ.
(Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 15; 1 Corinthians 54-55; Luke 24-35) This additional information is that Christ, because of his Primacy as True God and True Man, repaired the damage to the original relationship between humanity and Divinity.

The Primacy of Christ validates the reality of Adam and Original Sin. (Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22)

Hi Granny!

Because the “no debt” view essentially begins with Jesus, the old testament readings are all based on a debt view, as are all (almost all?) other religions, as explained by Cardinal Ratzinger in the link in my opening post.

So, please select a new testament verse, and if you would like to see the way of looking at it from a debt view vs. a no debt view, then let me know. I would start with the first N.T. you mentioned, but you forgot to write in the chapter.

It could very well be true that Paul, even Jesus, said some things with the debt view in mind. For that reason alone it seems imperative that the two views are harmonized, for everything can be read in ways that allow for both views.

Generally speaking, if sin is alienation and death is the state of such alienation, then Jesus’ resurrection stands as a means of overcoming the fear of death. Since fear is an example of such alienation, it is by faith in Jesus we can overcome the fear. That said, there are many other means of “alienation”, and all were addressed by Jesus in one manner or another.

Now, if the alienation occurs because God takes offense to our actions (which result from the alienation), then this would be a debt view; God withholds forgiveness or demands payment.

If the alienation occurs because of natural cause and effect (i.e. when I am obsessed with making money, I am enslaved; I am a dead, “make money” robot) and God does not take offense but continues to beckon (and work aggressively!) to bring us to Him, then this would be a no-debt view.

So, pick a specific verse and we can discuss it, Granny, unless you can read the verse yourself and find how each view would interpret it.

Thanks for your reply!

 

[wmw]

The victim’s view

The other views told of in this thread seem to talk of debtors sinning and Gods as a creditor or a God that just freely gives all forgiveness of His own accord. Yet, I think I’ve begun to consider another very important role. I myself have thought that God will just “make it up” to the victims in the form of treasures in heaven and beyond, but Christ is more than that and Christ’s passion is also part of the relief or making the suffering Holy. Christ brings all things together to not just patch things up, but to make all whole again and greater than before.

How a debt of justice might be paid and victim healed.

1. A sin is committed. We have freewill and abuse it.
2. There are usually victims, maybe not always clearly apparent, but it is the case particularly when we consider the community (the culture and society with which we are apart and should be building) and ourselves (the body as our temple of the Holy Spirit).
3. Forgiveness of the sinner is made available by Christ and His passion. Yet, it is the victims that are trespassed. The victims must also enter into Christ in His passion to join the communion, to be made whole again, to be healed, and cleansed.
4. Reconciliation is needed by the sinner to the victim and to God.
5. Absolution is granted not just for sinning, but healing is granted for the suffering of the victimized and for help in opening ourselves to be forgiving.
   In this view God is no creditor, nor handing out punishment, but like the non-debt view bringing together in communion with Him the humbled sinner and the strengthened victim.

---

God does not only allow the forgiveness of Cain, but He also allows a reunion with him with and his brother Able; who’s blood no longer calls from the ground, but is in union with Christ on the Cross.

So that by the one sinner, Adam, all blood is spilled and by one Christ all blood and water pours forth in forgiveness, cleansing, and communion.

 

[simpleas]

The victim’s view

The other views told of in this thread seem to talk of debtors sinning and Gods as a creditor or a God that just freely gives all forgiveness of His own accord. Yet, I think I’ve begun to consider another very important role. I myself have thought that God will just “make it up” to the victims in the form of treasures in heaven and beyond, but Christ is more than that and Christ’s passion is also part of the relief or making the suffering Holy. Christ brings all things together to not just patch things up, but to make all whole again and greater than before.

How a debt of justice might be paid and victim healed.

1. A sin is committed. We have freewill and abuse it.
2. There are usually victims, maybe not always clearly apparent, but it is the case particularly when we consider the community (the culture and society with which we are apart and should be building) and ourselves (the body as our temple of the Holy Spirit).
3. Forgiveness of the sinner is made available by Christ and His passion. Yet, it is the victims that are trespassed. The victims must also enter into Christ in His passion to join the communion, to be made whole again, to be healed, and cleansed.
4. Reconciliation is needed by the sinner to the victim and to God.
5. Absolution is granted not just for sinning, but healing is granted for the suffering of the victimized and for help in opening ourselves to be forgiving.
   In this view God is no creditor, nor handing out punishment, but like the non-debt view bringing together in communion with Him the humbled sinner and the strengthened victim.

---

God does not only allow the forgiveness of Cain, but He also allows a reunion with him with and his brother Able; who’s blood no longer calls from the ground, but is in union with Christ on the Cross.

So that by the one sinner, Adam, all blood is spilled and by one Christ all blood and water pours forth in forgiveness, cleansing, and communion.

#4 is a problem, not all sinners believe they sinned and created a victim to begin with.

I agree that the victim needs to be healed, cleansed etc, and think it can be achieved even without the sinner acknowledging that they sinned against someone, but this does take a lot of strength of forgiveness on the victims part. That is where Christ holds us together.

 

[wmw]

#4 is a problem, not all sinners believe they sinned and created a victim to begin with.

I agree that the victim needs to be healed, cleansed etc, and think it can be achieved even without the sinner acknowledging that they sinned against someone, but this does take a lot of strength of forgiveness on the victims part. That is where Christ holds us together.

The victims healing and being made whole is not dependent on the particular sinner. Christ welcomes all to the banquet, but only those who come and are truly there for the proper celebration are fed.

It is not mine to judge a sinner and/or a victim or say what is hard or not; I just want to get them to the banquet ready to be wed to Jesus.

To get them there, sinner or victim, they need to hear the gospel preached and become the disciples of Christ through the Church. We need to evangelize them to the point they see the need for repentance until they want Baptism and Reconciliation. Its part of our participation and growth in discipleship to evangelize.

The point of this view is see that the debt language can be used and our God not be described as a wrathful creditor. Also, the non-debt view of a participation in the sufferings of Jesus’ Passion and reconciliation with Him and our fellow sinners and victims is describable in human terms. These are able to be harmonized on a human level of understanding rather than only be chalked up to an indescribable divine mystery. Through it is also that and every description doesn’t describe the total ‘how’ in which Christs reunifies us to Himself.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi wmw!

The victim’s view

The other views told of in this thread seem to talk of debtors sinning and Gods as a creditor or a God that just freely gives all forgiveness of His own accord. Yet, I think I’ve begun to consider another very important role. I myself have thought that God will just “make it up” to the victims in the form of treasures in heaven and beyond, but Christ is more than that and Christ’s passion is also part of the relief or making the suffering Holy. Christ brings all things together to not just patch things up, but to make all whole again and greater than before.

How a debt of justice might be paid and victim healed.

Well, I thought I was following you, but I am confused at what you are addressing. If there is a “debt”, to whom is it owed? If it is to “justice”, then we are talking about doing what is right, and correcting a wrong, is that correct? If not, please let me know. This is making reparation. The question is, what is God’s reaction to all of this. Does He take offense? If so, then is the debt that which when paid satisfies God, that He no longer “holds it against us”? I think you may get to this later…

1. A sin is committed. We have freewill and abuse it.

1. There are usually victims, maybe not always clearly apparent, but it is the case particularly when we consider the community (the culture and society with which we are apart and should be building) and ourselves (the body as our temple of the Holy Spirit).

1. Forgiveness of the sinner is made available by Christ and His passion. Yet, it is the victims that are trespassed. The victims must also enter into Christ in His passion to join the communion, to be made whole again, to be healed, and cleansed.

2. Reconciliation is needed by the sinner to the victim **and to God**.

I bolded what I am addressing.
So, in my reading, if Christ made forgiveness “available”, and Christ somehow paid a debt, made satisfaction for the Father in some way, then we are saying that because of the incarnation God now has a change in acceptance of us. In a no-debt view, Christ comes not to change the mind of God (Himself), but to change the mind of man. The no-debt view begins with a God who forgives “before always”

Yes, reconciliation is “needed”. It is certainly needed between the people. In addition, all human parties would benefit from being reconnected (or newly connected) with God by repentance (changing their minds). This aspect is encompassed in both views. However, if reconciliation is having the perpetrator do something in order to regain God’s favor, or change God’s being offended, then this would fall under a “debt” view only.

To me, this is the way that the distinctions line out. Please let me know if I am missing something.

5)Absolution is granted not just for sinning, but healing is granted for the suffering of the victimized and for help in opening ourselves to be forgiving.
In this view God is no creditor, nor handing out punishment, but like the non-debt view bringing together in communion with Him the humbled sinner and the strengthened victim.

Number 5 here would depend on the detail of “Absolution”. If absolution means “satisfying a debt to God”, because of God’s taking offense, then this would be a debt view. If “absolution” is simply a replacement for “reconciliation”, then we are talking about people seeing eye-to-eye and people restoring their connection with God from their side if it is the no-debt view. In a debt view, the forgiveness, the reconnection, the attitude change, needs to happen from both sides.

---

God does not only allow the forgiveness of Cain, but He also allows a reunion with him with and his brother Able; who’s blood no longer calls from the ground, but is in union with Christ on the Cross.

So that by the one sinner, Adam, all blood is spilled and by one Christ all blood and water pours forth in forgiveness, cleansing, and communion.

To apply the same criteria: in the no-debt view, God had already forgiven Cain, “before always” as Christ calls for forgiveness, Christ is one with God, and Christ (Word) was in the beginning, before creation itself.

In the debt view, the “cleansing” is necessary in order to make a person acceptable to God in some way, to change the way that God looks upon the individual, in order for reunion to be “allowed” with Him. This view is essential in that the sense of debt motivates the believer to behave and make amends.

In the no-debt view, reunion is allowed “before always”. Jesus comes to change the mind of man (the definition of repentance) so that they put away all alienation and come to unite with God. The incarnation is invitation (and much more).

Thanks, wmw! I think that by going through your post, I have been learning how to express the distinctions through your examples. So much depends on the definitions, and the more I respond to these the more I see the legitimacy of both views.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks, wmw! I think that by going through your post, I have been learning how to express the distinctions through your examples. So much depends on the definitions, and the more I respond to these the more I see the legitimacy of both views.

As you read my previous posts leading to the harmonization of both your debt/no debt proposals regarding the relationship of humanity with Divinity, you will notice that I have not fully tackled your definition of “debt”. So far I have proposed that your “debt”, in any case, is the result of something happening between a human person and her/his Divine Creator. This would be significantly different from a debt between a human and a human. Therefore, I now wonder how, in what way, have you expanded the definition of debt. If the definition has not been expanded, what is your current definition of “debt?”

Thank you.

 

[cfauster]

I could be wrong, but it seems that OneSheep has been especially exploring the relationship between human and God (yet not ignoring the human-human relationships), whereas wmw has been especially exploring the relationships between human sinner and human victim of another human’s sin (yet also noting that each human’s relationship with God also needs restoration when that human sins against another human, and sometimes the victim’s relationship with God also needs restoration).

 

[grannymh]

I could be wrong, but it seems that OneSheep has been especially exploring the relationship between human and God (yet not ignoring the human-human relationships), whereas wmw has been especially exploring the relationships between human sinner and human victim of another human’s sin (yet also noting that each human’s relationship with God also needs restoration when that human sins against another human, and sometimes the victim’s relationship with God also needs restoration).

I agree.

Nevertheless, this cranky (feminine of snarky) granny keeps :banghead: when it comes to the word “debt” in the thread’s title. My latest rather strange idea is that debt is implied in 1 Corinthians 15: 50-58. Could “… nor does corruption inherit incorruption.” refer back to Genesis 2: 15-17 & Genesis 3: 11? If that is so, then there is another reason for the truth filled John 3:17 (sic) and the debt of Adam in 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22 & Romans 5: 12-21.

Now, can you understand why this older than dirt brain hurts? Especially when I see that side issues include the validity of the State of Mortal Sin and human free will. (*CCC *1730-1732)

 

[simpleas]

The victims healing and being made whole is not dependent on the particular sinner. Christ welcomes all to the banquet, but only those who come and are truly there for the proper celebration are fed.

It is not mine to judge a sinner and/or a victim or say what is hard or not; I just want to get them to the banquet ready to be wed to Jesus.

To get them there, sinner or victim, they need to hear the gospel preached and become the disciples of Christ through the Church. We need to evangelize them to the point they see the need for repentance until they want Baptism and Reconciliation. Its part of our participation and growth in discipleship to evangelize.

The point of this view is see that the debt language can be used and our God not be described as a wrathful creditor. Also, the non-debt view of a participation in the sufferings of Jesus’ Passion and reconciliation with Him and our fellow sinners and victims is describable in human terms. These are able to be harmonized on a human level of understanding rather than only be chalked up to an indescribable divine mystery. Through it is also that and every description doesn’t describe the total ‘how’ in which Christs reunifies us to Himself.

Yes, but the victim does not need to repent, they are the victim. They may need healing from the pains caused by another.
.
They may need the healing in order to forgive an unrepented person, if they can’t forgive that is where they are holding the debt against the sinner.

We may think we are not forgiven our sins by God unless we go to confession. If a victim never receives an apology from the sinner, they may feel they can not forgiven them.

 

[wmw]

Part of the mystery is the Devine ability to forgive in place of the victims for He has become the victim for all. Also, He heals and apologises to the victims for He has become the sinner for all. God cares for all to be made whole and indwelled with the graces of the Holy Spirit and obtain eternal life. He holds no anger but applies the works of Christ where human freewill allows. He does not have to change, but Christ changes us in our debts or our credits. Still, each must be made whole in spirit and in justice. The Father needs no rerestoration, but Christ has been made man to be the restoration for both sinner and victim of which each human is both.

 

[wmw]

To apply the same criteria: in the no-debt view, God had already forgiven Cain, “before always” as Christ calls for forgiveness, Christ is one with God, and Christ (Word) was in the beginning, before creation itself.

This view is not legitimate in the teaching of the Church. For there must be a turning away from sin in the person’s life for there to be forgiveness and they must turn toward Christ for salvation.

From the CCC:

982 There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. “There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest.”529 Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin.530 (1463, 605)

987 “In the forgiveness of sins, both priests and sacraments are instruments which our Lord Jesus Christ, the only author and liberal giver of salvation, wills to use in order to efface our sins and give us the grace of justification” (Roman Catechism, I, 11, 6).

 

[OneSheep]

As you read my previous posts leading to the harmonization of both your debt/no debt proposals regarding the relationship of humanity with Divinity, you will notice that I have not fully tackled your definition of “debt”. So far I have proposed that your “debt”, in any case, is the result of something happening between a human person and her/his Divine Creator. This would be significantly different from a debt between a human and a human. Therefore, I now wonder how, in what way, have you expanded the definition of debt. If the definition has not been expanded, what is your current definition of “debt?”

Thank you.

Lessee… definition?.. er… on this page, the definition is…

If you read my responses carefully, I keep trying to say exactly what I mean in terms of “debt”. Notice that I am constantly referring to the distinction as one that begins with whether or not God takes offense. I am, and I think Cardinal Ratzinger is also (when addressing St. Anselm), referring to the debt created when God has taken offense and is carrying some level of “disfavor” or (maintaining some distance, finding man unacceptable in some way, etc.) until the debt is paid. As a result of the payment, God’s offense is relieved, just as we humans feel a sense of satisfaction or relief when someone who has wronged us has apologized and changed their ways.

I put “disfavor” in scare quotes because some people (including me) are not fond of the word use, but we have not found a good substitute yet. We could say we get on God’s s*** list, but that would be even more unpalatable. At any rate, we can all relate to being on the “disfavor” list of another human, the question is, is God like that, does He take offense and communicate disfavor, hold something against us, or does He not? Some say yes, and some say no. This is what we are attempting to harmonize.

And so far, Granny, you have not (as of yet) expressed seeing any legitimacy in the “no debt” view, so I encourage you to find its legitimacy or drop the harmonizing attempt altogether. Why harmonize two views when your only seeing one as legitimate? Stick with what you know, Granny. Stick with the view that works for you, and don’t worry about the harmonizing stuff. The debt view has its place, period. That people ascribe to the debt view is God’s will in my tentative theory. That is, it is God’s will that we perceive that He takes offense until we have forgiven, at the deepest level, all those we hold anything against, including ourselves, and even those parts of ourselves we hold something against.

It’s okay not to see legitimacy Granny… let it go… It’s okay……

With great love, deepest respect, and, definitely, good humor,

Your friend always

OneSheep

 

[grannymh]

Lessee… definition?.. er… on this page, the definition is…

If you read my responses carefully, I keep trying to say exactly what I mean in terms of “debt”. Notice that I am constantly referring to the distinction as one that begins with whether or not God takes offense. I am, and I think Cardinal Ratzinger is also (when addressing St. Anselm), referring to the debt created when God has taken offense and is carrying some level of “disfavor” or (maintaining some distance, finding man unacceptable in some way, etc.) until the debt is paid. As a result of the payment, God’s offense is relieved, just as we humans feel a sense of satisfaction or relief when someone who has wronged us has apologized and changed their ways.

I put “disfavor” in scare quotes because some people (including me) are not fond of the word use, but we have not found a good substitute yet. We could say we get on God’s s*** list, but that would be even more unpalatable. At any rate, we can all relate to being on the “disfavor” list of another human, the question is, is God like that, does He take offense and communicate disfavor, hold something against us, or does He not? Some say yes, and some say no. This is what we are attempting to harmonize.

And so far, Granny, you have not (as of yet) expressed seeing any legitimacy in the “no debt” view, so I encourage you to find its legitimacy or drop the harmonizing attempt altogether. Why harmonize two views when your only seeing one as legitimate? Stick with what you know, Granny. Stick with the view that works for you, and don’t worry about the harmonizing stuff. The debt view has its place, period. That people ascribe to the debt view is God’s will in my tentative theory. That is, it is God’s will that we perceive that He takes offense until we have forgiven, at the deepest level, all those we hold anything against, including ourselves, and even those parts of ourselves we hold something against.

It’s okay not to see legitimacy Granny… let it go… It’s okay……

With great love, deepest respect, and, definitely, good humor,

Your friend always

OneSheep

Thank you. Your position is understandable in our wide world.

Accidentally, I just found some information about offending God under the definition for the sin of presumption. From the human position, I wonder if some of the assumptions inherent in the no debt view could be considered as wrongful assumptions or misleading assumptions.

From this link on the sin of presumption. catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-sin-of-presumption
“One wonders how sincere a person’s love for God is when he is so readily willing to sin simply because God is forgiving. God cannot be fooled. He reads hearts and knows our sincerity. To decide to sin is to offend God. To decide to sin because one knows that he can be forgiven is to sin twice. It is to use God, reducing him to a utility at the service of our whim. It is to laugh at His passion and death.”

 

[OneSheep]

Hi wmw! Yes, there are some sections of the CCC that appear to lean heavily toward the “debt” view, and like I said, the debt view has its place, it is legitimate! But there is a way of reading the CCC from a no-debt view.

This view is not legitimate in the teaching of the Church. For there must be a turning away from sin in the person’s life for there to be forgiveness and they must turn toward Christ for salvation.

From the CCC:

982 There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. “There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest.”529 Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin.530 (1463, 605)

987 “In the forgiveness of sins, both priests and sacraments are instruments which our Lord Jesus Christ, the only author and liberal giver of salvation, wills to use in order to efface our sins and give us the grace of justification” (Roman Catechism, I, 11, 6).

If sin is alienation, and forgiveness is belonging, which are aspects of one no-debt view I have been sharing here, it is a matter of cause and effect that if a person lets go of their alienation, they will “belong”. We all belong to God. The question is, are we connected to such belonging? Does God “belong” with us? Are we operating with our “true self” as someone on this thread said, are we connected, or are we instead alienated from our love of God, the God we find within ourselves?

So no, if a person has not overcome their alienation, if the person is still enslaved by desire for status, lust, other people’s stuff, withholding forgiveness, etc, he will not “belong”, he will remain disunited from his true self. How can a person “confidently hope” for belonging if they have not repented from enslavement to grudge-holding? This person is alienating, isolating, himself. This person cannot fathom belonging, because others (those who he holds something against), in his view, do not belong.

What this section of the CCC does not address is whether or not there is a debt to be paid to God, or was paid to God, in order to enact appeasement or change of the offended attitude on God’s part. Such addressing would be one that draws the distinctions that the Cardinal is addressing in the Introduction:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

The image of God that the Cardinal shows is that of the prodigal son’s father, even more so. Not only does the son belong to the Father, but the father takes the situation in His own hands. Incarnation is the Trinity taking the initiative to fully engage humanity. In the debt view, this initiative is a one which takes place to make reparation of a wronged God. In the no-debt view, this initiative is from pure love and desire for union, done freely without the burden of having to satisfy a wrong. The incarnation, in the no-debt view, is part of a singular, uninterrupted creative motion on the part of God.

Feel free to bring in more apparent contradictions! These items have to be worked through in order to establish legitimacy.

Thanks, wmw!

 

[grannymh]

For the purpose of harmonizing the debt/no debt views, the word debt will be defined as a result of something happening between the first human person and his Divine Creator.

Google brought up an intriguing definition. *a feeling of gratitude for a service or favor. “we owe them a debt of thanks.”
synonyms: indebtedness, obligation *

Another interesting definition. "A moral or legal obligation to make reparations or undergo punishment for committing an offense: a criminal repaying his debt to society.
And, of course, the common definition of owing money to a creditor. Additional definitions and/or examples will be appreciated.

Regardless of how debt is defined, it is still the result of something happening which causes the *“debt.” *Coming from Catholic teachings, we can conclude that this thread’s word “debt” refers to the result of the first human directly and freely disobeying God. (Genesis 3: 11; CCC 396-397)

Please be careful. Knowing that the debt is the result means that we have to have precise knowledge of what caused it. According to Catholicism, what caused the debt is the Original Sin of the first original human.